“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

If You’re Under Litigation, You Don’t Get to Drop By.


⟡ They Called It “Support.” She Called Her Lawyer. ⟡
When Westminster attempts another doorstep disruption, the reply is written, timestamped, and legally unimpressed.

Filed: 22 May 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/EMAIL-03
📎 Download PDF – 2025-05-22_SWANK_Email_Westminster_CINRefusal_LegalNotice.pdf
A formal legal notice declining further CIN (Child in Need) visits, citing medical exemption, multiple police reports, and active litigation against Westminster.

I. What Happened

Despite being under formal legal complaint, repeated police reporting, and active disability protections, Westminster sent yet another CIN visit demand.
The mother — already medically exempt from verbal interaction — responded in writing.
She documented the refusal.
She cited legal obligations.
She reminded them that “support” doesn’t override law.

II. What the Email Establishes

  • That the CIN visit request was made in full knowledge of the mother’s medical restrictions

  • That Westminster was already under formal legal scrutiny at the time

  • That the refusal was legally grounded, clearly worded, and archived for evidentiary purposes

  • That further contact would be treated as harassment

III. Why SWANK Filed It

Because CIN plans are not get-out-of-jail-free cards for abusive institutions.
Because “refusing help” is not a crime — especially when the “help” comes with legal threats, policy breaches, and coercion.
And because silence is not consent when you’re being threatened in writing.

IV. Violations Identified

  • Continued Harassment Despite Medical and Legal Notice

  • Disability Discrimination Through Procedural Pressure

  • Retaliatory CIN Escalation During Active Litigation

  • Abuse of Child in Need Framework as a Control Mechanism

  • Procedural Malice in Disregard of Active Complaints

V. SWANK’s Position

There is no law that requires a disabled parent to open the door to their abusers.
There is no statute that says “child in need” means “mother under siege.”
And there is no future in which Westminster pretends this didn’t happen.
The refusal was lawful.
The pressure was not.

⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡ Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach. We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence. This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance. And retaliation deserves an archive. © 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.

No comments:

Post a Comment

This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.

We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.

If you post here, you’re part of the record.

Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.

Documented Obsessions